Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

this care payment cap is a great idea, eh? Just what this country needs when in the middle of an economic crisis caused by the rich running off with all the money is to change the laws to ensure that the rich keep all of the money, even after they've died.

It's as natural human idea to want to care and provide for your children, but when those children are fit and able adults why do they need inheritances from their parents? Especially when those inheritances will be in the later years of their lives when they are likely tobe (if they're ever going to be) financially comfortable anyway?

Are we a society where ability and work gets you the privilege of money, or are we to be a society where the already rich have govt guarantees that their children will be rich too?

We need to provide free care for *all* elderly people, and we need to provide no people with a free lift thru life via inheritance. Pay for the care of the elderly via the money that the just-dead elderly no longer have need for.

Inheritance is 100% wrong in a meritocracy, because no one merits a free ride thru life.

Share on other sites

One day arguing the richer in society should get NOTHING from the state and then the next suggesting they should get free elderly care

Make your mind up... You are almost suggesting the elderly should have an entitlement to elderly care

I have no problem with the rich getting stuff from the state, as long as its financially viable - and it's only financially if the rich are paying far more for getting that benefit than the benefit costs. Which is nothing of what these new proposals are.

These new proposals are about ensuring that the rich remain rich, and nothing else. They're actually designed to ensure as much as possible that new people can't join their rich club, because these new rules will impoverish all but the top 10% of people, while ensuring that the top 10% will have a very nice wedge to pass onto their idle children.

Are we a meritocracy, or not? If we are a meritocracy then no one needs inheritance.

If we're not a meritocracy then the path to a better tomorrow is dead for everyone - which is the very purpose of these new rules. They're about ensuring the rich stay rich and the poor stay poor, and nothing else.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The 75k figure is very misleading with food and accomodation not included, it may mean a few wealthy people keep their houses but I suspect the majority will have to sell their own homes to meet the needs of their care. In general I have no problem with people funding their own care through their assests, why should the taxpayers effectively pay for a childs inheritance? However I do acknowledge that there is some unfairness where people who have saved are expected to contribute where people who have been wasteful with their money are not.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The 75k figure is very misleading with food and accomodation not included, it may mean a few wealthy people keep their houses but I suspect the majority will have to sell their own homes to meet the needs of their care. In general I have no problem with people funding their own care through their assests, why should the taxpayers effectively pay for a childs inheritance? However I do acknowledge that there is some unfairness where people who have saved are expected to contribute where people who have been wasteful with their money are not.

I also have no problem with selling assets to fund care but it can be problematic when two people own the house (married couple) and one needs care and the other needs the home. What do you do then ?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I like my home, I don't think of it as an asset, it's where I live. Our kids come here when they want or need to, we've just about got enough space for guests/family/friends to come and stay for a few days when needed (with a bit of musical beds, sleeping on spare mattresses etc) it's a home...

everything's a fucking 'asset' these days!

(that's not a 'go' at you Barry)

I was born into Thatchers Britain.... A house as been an asset for my entire life.

GIven a choice I would prefer to see it as more of a home than a asset but considering the level of mortgage I am paying that is difficult

Saying this... I spent a lot of money on an extension last summer making it into even more of a house for my family and I won't see that money again (well not all of it) so the concept of it being a home first isn't lost on me. You just can't hide away from the its financial value either....

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I also have no problem with selling assets to fund care but it can be problematic when two people own the house (married couple) and one needs care and the other needs the home. What do you do then ?

I also dont have a problem with the idea of funding my own care through my home. In an aging population it is unrealistic to expect taxpayers to subsidize care for everyone. I would like to help my child get on the housing ladder as my parents did, but to me them getting an inheritance isnt a priority. I cant make my mind up about the joint ownership concept, the idealist in me thinks a husband and wife should be allowed to stay in their own home indefinetely. However thinking about people trying to get on the housing market, having a lot of people on their own living in big houses, pushes supply down and prices up. I am also concerned that funding the wealthys care indefintely will leave a load of empty houses empty in the long term, with their children just waiting to cash in sometime in the future.

I am very much in favour of doing everything possible to keep people at home in the community as long as possible and have seen incidents of people being pushed into care because its the easiest. However living in an aging population with a "not in my back yard" atttiude to building new houses, if people arent expected to sell houses to fund their care, where will we get the houses from?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not necassarily, I work in the NHS and regularly see people who have been in care homes for years. In an aging population this will only increase. If we arent going to build significanlty more new homes and at the same time are going to make it easier for people to hold on to their homes for longer, its inevitable that it will become more difficult for the next generation to get on the housing ladder. If at the same time we are going to expect that generation to pay for the long term care of people with more wealth than themselves, then they will be lucky to have any disposable income at all.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Not necassarily, I work in the NHS and regularly see people who have been in care homes for years. In an aging population this will only increase. If we arent going to build significanlty more new homes and at the same time are going to make it easier for people to hold on to their homes for longer, its inevitable that it will become more difficult for the next generation to get on the housing ladder. If at the same time we are going to expect that generation to pay for the long term care of people with more wealth than themselves, then they will be lucky to have any disposable income at all.

Every single person I know in their 20s feels they have a choice between living with parents and having a small amount of disposable income or living independently and having none. It's a tough choice.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I really think care for the elderly is a massive problem which no one has still yet properly addressed. I don't see why people should have to sell their homes to fund it. If it were the case that people had to sell their homes to cover their medical bills people would be up in arms, probably because no one gives a fuck about old people.